[lbo-talk] Notes Towards a Critiq8ue of Progress (1)

[Miles Jackson]

Shane Mage wrote:
> 
> On Feb 14, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Carrol Cox wrote:
> 
>> Stephen Jay Gould  suggests... that "Higher" life forms, far
>> from being the logical or necessary emergence from life as it  existed 
>> in the first billion years or so, were in fact highly  unlikely. That 
>> we find ourselves here is the result of innumerable  contingencies, 
>> none of which had a high probability.
> 
> 
> 
> The dogmatism of Darwinists like Gould is amazing.  Knowing nothing  
> except received opinion about conditions in  the prehistoric past he  
> claimed to know the "probability" of "innumerable" events, none of  
> which he, or anyone else, knows the slightest bit about.  It seems he  
> didn't even realize that all past macroscopic (non-quantum) events,  
> known and unknown, are known (because they took place) to have been  
> 100% certain. Probability is an *ex ante*, not an *ex post* category.   
> Except *perhaps* at the quantum level probability expresses our  
> uncertainty, not anything about nature.  Le Bon Dieu does not play  dice 
> with the universe.

No, you're missing Gould's point.  The thought experiment involves 
rewinding history and estimating the "ex ante" probability of getting 
the same result in alternate timelines 2 through n.  From the standpoint 
of probability theory, it is highly unlikely that a long string of 
random events would occur exactly the same way more than once.  Simple 
example: if you flip 5 heads in a row with a fair coin, next time you 
flip a coin 5 times you are very, very unlikely to see 5 heads in a row. 

   Thus it is almost certain that a "rewind" of history would lead to 
different outcomes, simply because random events would "break" in 
different ways in each timeline.

I agree that this probability argument is moot if you believe that there 
is an intelligent deity guiding the development of the universe.  (I'm 
not sure if the last sentence of your post is serious or facetious.)

Miles